You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #48: It doesn't need a VIN [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. It doesn't need a VIN
because it just magically came into existence. It is a Porsche, but it is invisible. It can move around at will and instantaneously. It can move on it's own decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Margaret Atwood: "Atheism is a religion" greyl  Sep-22-06 01:38 PM   #0 
  - I'm getting under the desk and not coming out until this is over  TallahasseeGrannie   Sep-22-06 01:40 PM   #1 
  - that might be a good idea. Too bad I'm not that smart.  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 01:50 PM   #5 
  - Good on ya, Grannie  Warpy   Sep-22-06 01:53 PM   #8 
  - LOL. Room in there for another? nt  JerseygirlCT   Sep-22-06 08:17 PM   #59 
  - You know, I might just peek out  TallahasseeGrannie   Sep-23-06 07:27 AM   #81 
     - Shazaam! ANOTHER new church?  beam me up scottie   Sep-23-06 07:47 AM   #82 
     - See now, we'd get along nicely on all counts! nt  JerseygirlCT   Sep-23-06 07:57 AM   #83 
  - move over girl  dwickham   Sep-24-06 06:08 PM   #107 
  - Is there room under there for me,  Dorian Gray   Sep-25-06 02:38 PM   #132 
  - Yeah, and I'm a confirmed atheist  TechBear_Seattle   Sep-22-06 01:40 PM   #2 
  - Militant agnostic:  SCantiGOP   Sep-22-06 02:31 PM   #26 
  - I like that. :) nt  greyl   Sep-22-06 03:15 PM   #46 
  - oooooh  TallahasseeGrannie   Sep-23-06 10:46 AM   #88 
  - It depends on the definitions one uses....  eallen   Sep-22-06 01:40 PM   #3 
  - Right. Is atheism an "absolute stand"?  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:01 PM   #12 
  - I have to agree with Margaret on this one  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 01:49 PM   #4 
  - But do you have  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 01:53 PM   #7 
  - Exactly, so I would ignore the question  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 01:59 PM   #10 
  - But ignoring it doesn't address the question.  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 02:37 PM   #31 
     - Perhaps it's the non answer answer.  Javaman   Sep-22-06 03:13 PM   #44 
  - Sorry, that could be tested, too. nt  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:33 PM   #28 
     - OK, test it.  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 02:36 PM   #30 
        - It would be just like testing auras.  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:48 PM   #37 
        - Apparently I am the only one chosen  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 03:02 PM   #40 
           - No problem.  greyl   Sep-22-06 03:14 PM   #45 
              - It doesn't need a VIN  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 03:28 PM   #48 
                 - What do you mean by "Porsche" then?  greyl   Sep-22-06 03:40 PM   #52 
                    - I'm not moving the goal posts  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 09:02 PM   #60 
                       - You'll have to play along or forfeit your case.  greyl   Sep-23-06 06:18 AM   #67 
                          - Fine, but this is the ultimate Porsche  Goblinmonger   Sep-24-06 11:16 AM   #103 
                             - Is it that way with all liquids?  greyl   Sep-25-06 10:45 AM   #122 
                                - It runs  Goblinmonger   Sep-25-06 11:15 AM   #126 
                                   - So, you're saying it's an internal combustion engine  greyl   Sep-25-06 11:35 AM   #128 
                                      - My magic Porsche also transcends combustion  Goblinmonger   Sep-25-06 01:51 PM   #130 
        - Not quite analogous  Donald Ian Rankin   Sep-23-06 06:07 PM   #96 
           - I see no real difference between your examples  Goblinmonger   Sep-24-06 11:14 AM   #102 
              - The definitions of "demon" and "porsche".  Donald Ian Rankin   Sep-25-06 08:55 AM   #117 
                 - First of all I said "magical Porsche"  Goblinmonger   Sep-25-06 11:14 AM   #125 
  - My Atheism is based on reason.  Odin2005   Sep-22-06 02:22 PM   #18 
     - Yes, but can your reason positively prove that there is no God?  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 02:25 PM   #21 
     - I'm sure it is. However,  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:26 PM   #22 
  - Let me name some other religions:  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 01:51 PM   #6 
  - Those statements can all be proven, thus they aren't religions.  greyl   Sep-22-06 01:57 PM   #9 
  - So how does one go about proving a negative? n/t  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 02:00 PM   #11 
  - It totally depends on the negative, but it can be done.  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:04 PM   #14 
  - I have always understood logic to assert that "that which is not,  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 02:17 PM   #15 
  - I think that's a bit of a myth.  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:23 PM   #19 
  - Myth? Seems pretty straight ahead to me. n/t  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 02:39 PM   #34 
  - However, many atheists do NOT assert that the premise is false.  Zhade   Sep-23-06 04:02 PM   #93 
  - There is no elephant in my office. Come look, and you'll see.  eallen   Sep-22-06 02:24 PM   #20 
     - Right. "I'm Not a Giraffe, and I Can Prove It" R. Steiner.  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:29 PM   #24 
        - Yes, but you can only prove it because Giraffe's exist.  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 02:38 PM   #32 
           - Yes, but I could choose anything which does, in fact, exist.  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:51 PM   #38 
           - Well that begs the question.  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 03:03 PM   #41 
              - Naw, that's a different argument.  greyl   Sep-22-06 03:26 PM   #47 
              - There is a big difference between  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 03:30 PM   #49 
                 - Yes, there is.  greyl   Sep-22-06 03:34 PM   #51 
                    - You need to make some some leaps to get away from Atwood  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 09:05 PM   #61 
                       - I think it can be proven that unicorns don't exist,  greyl   Sep-23-06 06:26 AM   #68 
              - LOL, and therein is the crux of the argument. n/t  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 03:32 PM   #50 
           - There are no mammals with six legs. There are no...  eallen   Sep-22-06 05:21 PM   #54 
              - And there is no end in sight to this debate. I knew I shouldn't have  Freedom_from_Chains   Sep-22-06 06:38 PM   #57 
              - Sure there is.  greyl   Sep-23-06 06:28 AM   #70 
              - Some negatives can be proven, indeed.  greyl   Sep-23-06 06:27 AM   #69 
              - Ooh, I'd be careful with that first claim.  trotsky   Sep-23-06 09:28 AM   #85 
  - Some more examples  moggie   Sep-25-06 03:12 AM   #114 
     - Nice explanation of the situation.  greyl   Sep-25-06 10:22 AM   #121 
  - causin trouble again  Jim4Wes   Sep-22-06 02:04 PM   #13 
  - I've always enjoyed jumping into a big pile of neatly raked leaves. ;) nt  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:18 PM   #16 
  - How can they be proven?  Goblinmonger   Sep-22-06 02:38 PM   #33 
  - We'd need to define the concepts in the statements.  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:55 PM   #39 
  - But what Atwood is ignorant of, apparently, is that not all atheists...  Zhade   Sep-23-06 03:58 PM   #92 
  - "There's no word for someone who doesn't believe in astrology."  SheWhoMustBeObeyed   Sep-25-06 01:33 PM   #129 
  - Well, the reason some Christians do it is that they apparently have a need  Heaven and Earth   Sep-23-06 12:49 PM   #89 
  - The atheists I know personally  SheilaT   Sep-22-06 02:20 PM   #17 
  - You think that atheists depend on other for their beliefs?  muriel_volestrangler   Sep-23-06 06:33 AM   #73 
  - Rubbish. Christians try to project their world view onto everything...  Union Thug   Sep-22-06 02:27 PM   #23 
  - That may be true, but Atwood is no Christian. nt  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:30 PM   #25 
     - Let me clarify... Atwood is citing the most common xtian argument  Union Thug   Sep-22-06 02:34 PM   #29 
        - Then you'd be agnostic, right? nt  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:40 PM   #36 
           - No, he'd be an agnostic atheist. nt  beam me up scottie   Sep-22-06 06:23 PM   #56 
           - Isn't the term "weak atheist"?  Donald Ian Rankin   Sep-23-06 06:12 PM   #97 
              - Both terms are correct.  beam me up scottie   Sep-23-06 07:52 PM   #98 
              - You can't be an atheist with regards to a set God, can you?  Donald Ian Rankin   Sep-24-06 02:39 AM   #99 
                 - Again, there are different types of atheism.  beam me up scottie   Sep-24-06 02:51 AM   #100 
                 - Well, I'll answer. Don't mind do you Bmus?  Random_Australian   Sep-24-06 07:12 AM   #101 
                 - Of course not!  beam me up scottie   Sep-24-06 11:09 PM   #110 
                 - Check your pm for the only God I don't have a solution for, in a little  Random_Australian   Sep-24-06 11:35 PM   #113 
                 - I think that being an atheist with respect to specific gods  Donald Ian Rankin   Sep-25-06 08:49 AM   #115 
                    - Assumptions? Puh! Watch this!  Random_Australian   Sep-25-06 09:10 AM   #120 
                    - Always entertaining, RA  moggie   Sep-25-06 04:53 PM   #134 
                       - *takes bow* I do my best. However, I shant be able to drink wine  Random_Australian   Sep-25-06 06:48 PM   #136 
                    - Then perhaps you should look up the argument from divine hiddeness  beam me up scottie   Sep-25-06 02:24 PM   #131 
                 - Dude, I hate to break this to you  Goblinmonger   Sep-24-06 11:19 AM   #104 
                    - And this:  beam me up scottie   Sep-24-06 11:17 PM   #111 
                    - To a mathematician, a frog can be whatever you choose to define it as.  Donald Ian Rankin   Sep-25-06 08:52 AM   #116 
                       - Moot point.  Random_Australian   Sep-25-06 09:00 AM   #119 
                       - I was just trying to be funny.  Goblinmonger   Sep-25-06 11:18 AM   #127 
                          - Bad whackjob fundamentalist atheist preacher!  beam me up scottie   Sep-25-06 11:09 PM   #138 
              - Here is the problem: Belief vs. Reason  smirkymonkey   Sep-24-06 12:33 PM   #106 
           - Not agnostic. Atheist.  Union Thug   Sep-22-06 09:39 PM   #62 
              - It's a matter of definition.  IMModerate   Sep-23-06 01:00 AM   #63 
              - What's the difference? nt  greyl   Sep-23-06 06:40 AM   #75 
                 - Analysis:  beam me up scottie   Sep-23-06 07:11 AM   #77 
  - greyl, I would have expected more from you.  trotsky   Sep-22-06 02:32 PM   #27 
  - :) I'm still trying to work the issue out for myself.  greyl   Sep-22-06 02:39 PM   #35 
     - And I assert one doesn't have to have full knowledge...  trotsky   Sep-23-06 09:35 AM   #86 
     - One doesn't need to waver between them, as they are distinctly...  Zhade   Sep-23-06 04:12 PM   #94 
  - This should be good...  Javaman   Sep-22-06 03:12 PM   #42 
  - Uh oh  omega minimo   Sep-22-06 03:12 PM   #43 
  - I don't see anything wrong  bloom   Sep-22-06 05:05 PM   #53 
  - BMUS: "Margaret Atwood is a moron."  beam me up scottie   Sep-22-06 06:20 PM   #55 
  - You extremist Atwood-bashing atheist whackjob.  neebob   Sep-23-06 01:38 AM   #64 
  - It says here I am required to gush.  beam me up scottie   Sep-23-06 05:39 AM   #65 
     - Yes, please,  neebob   Sep-23-06 02:21 PM   #90 
  - It doesn't depend on the definition of atheism?  greyl   Sep-23-06 06:31 AM   #71 
     - She says atheism is a religion, do you agree with that?  beam me up scottie   Sep-23-06 07:08 AM   #76 
        - Depends on the definition of atheism.  greyl   Sep-23-06 07:16 AM   #78 
        - I'm saying she's an idiot who didn't bother to research the subject  beam me up scottie   Sep-23-06 07:21 AM   #80 
        - "strong atheism is dogmatic" is closer to the truth of the matter.  Zhade   Sep-23-06 04:23 PM   #95 
           - I agree, having been one on occasion. :) nt  greyl   Sep-25-06 10:48 AM   #123 
        - No, That Is Idiotic  Southpawkicker   Sep-24-06 08:18 PM   #108 
           - ....  Random_Australian   Sep-24-06 10:39 PM   #109 
           - Thanks, SPK!  beam me up scottie   Sep-24-06 11:19 PM   #112 
              - Teachability  Southpawkicker   Sep-25-06 09:47 PM   #137 
  - She doesn't understand atheism and agnostic definitions.  ozone_man   Sep-22-06 07:13 PM   #58 
  - What do we call someone who positively asserts there is no God? nt  greyl   Sep-23-06 06:32 AM   #72 
     - A strong atheist.  beam me up scottie   Sep-23-06 07:18 AM   #79 
  - It comes down to the precise definitions you use  muriel_volestrangler   Sep-23-06 06:17 AM   #66 
  - I agree. Dawkins is agreeing with Atwood on a point:  greyl   Sep-23-06 06:38 AM   #74 
  - I wish it was!  Finder   Sep-23-06 08:40 AM   #84 
  - Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby  Caution   Sep-23-06 09:54 AM   #87 
  - And Margaret Atwood is an idiot  Goblinmonger   Sep-24-06 11:22 AM   #105 
  - Absolutely false, for reasons already explained.  Zhade   Sep-23-06 03:17 PM   #91 
  - This is the same Margaret Atwood...  moggie   Sep-25-06 08:59 AM   #118 
  - She said that???  beam me up scottie   Sep-25-06 11:22 PM   #140 
  - "What Was She Thinking?" - atheism.about.com  greyl   Sep-25-06 10:58 AM   #124 
  - Yes, I was quite dissapointed in her stance.  catbert836   Sep-25-06 03:46 PM   #133 
  - "Arrogance of Agnosticism"  beam me up scottie   Sep-25-06 11:17 PM   #139 
  - Atwood seems to have missed something...  and-justice-for-all   Sep-25-06 05:47 PM   #135 
  - I know we bounce around our terms here all the time on R/T  TallahasseeGrannie   Sep-26-06 08:06 AM   #141 
  - Does radical = fundamentalist?  varkam   Sep-28-06 10:41 PM   #143 
  - yeah, and BALDNESS is a HAIR COLOR...  NAO   Sep-28-06 10:29 PM   #142 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC